31–40 of 43 posts
This is why citizen journalism, as rough as it often is, is successful, and why data-based journalism like fiverthirtyeight is the future of professional journalism.
Rather easy to take potshots, now that Iraq is falling apart. If this outcome was so obvious why wait until now to write an op-ed? The pre-war coverage had some problems but I thought the reporting about the war, on the whole, was pretty decent. I read a lot about torture and about the lack of press freedom in Iraq.
> Rather easy to take potshots, now that Iraq is falling apart. If this outcome was so obvious why wait until now to write an op-ed? It's outcome was known and obvious from the get go. You kill the dictator that repress another extremist. What did you think it was going to happen? No retaliation. America's 'Wars' from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, War on Terror (and War on Drugs) have all been, very, very, very…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my very limited understanding of embeds, it appears that they are journalists who form part of the army team. It is not clear to me if they are protected/have access to military secrets by virtue of being part of the team; however, it appears to be implied. In such a scenario, I am not sure how the question of neutrality even ever appears. If you are embedded, you are by definition not neutral? Surely, there are…
Of course other ways exist! In these, you will have your head blown off by 18 year olds who mistake your camera for a RPG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrik...
The American mainstream media is severely dysfunctional. Cable "news" networks are biased outlets for each political party to deliver their message. Even more-traditional network news outlets like NBC News have sacrificed the appearance of a separation of the reporters from the politicians they're supposed to report on by hiring family members of recent and current political figures. On NBC's current payroll are Jenn…
Soon most people will get their news online, not from TV. The audience for TV keeps getting older and the market share for digital news keeps growing.
It was a really wrenching exchange as the existing cable mogul defended the status quo, saying something like, "We'd love to have sophisticated news consumers tune in, but those people have complex lives and interests, they don't watch news every night, they just read it quickly online then go to things like the ballet. We run the market experiment with sober, deep, fact-based news every night against PBS. It doesn't win."
It's helpful to realize that even when Fox is top of the ratings, the viewers it has as a percentage of the American population are exceedingly tiny.
In a Gallup poll in 2013, TV still leads, in surveys. But surveys overstate things, because people want to look like they actually consume news. http://www.gallup.com/poll/163412/americans-main-source-news...
On a strong weekday, Fox is looking at maybe 2 million viewers for the entire day: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/06/10/cable-news-ratin... (ie, under a percent of the US population).
It's easy to credit TV news with a larger cultural impact than it actually has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The piece is just shy of 1200 words. Is a tldr really needed? Would that his analysis was longer.... Back to Hedges' books.
> his Her. Why are people still misgendering Chelsea Manning?
The problem extends much further than Iraq and affects all journalism. For example, the most widely read report from the New York Times on the Russia-Ukraine conflict was completely false. ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-york-times-propaganda-photo... ) That being said, the NYT is still much more neutral in its reporting than the kremlin-funded Russia Today, which is little more than a propaganda machine, includin…
Since I seem to be the only one awake I will comment on Chelsea's op-ed. She raises the really important point of journalists needing to be able to be able to report on what is actually going on for the American public to be able to make an informed decision. What I wonder is how we (by we I mean the greater tech community) can do to make this happen?
http://www.newyorker.com/strongbox/ https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/securedrop
And Redphone and the various things Moxie works on: https://whispersystems.org/
But that only makes communications and authenticity possible. Access -- as in embedding problem Manning describes -- and censorship or selection bias will still be a problem. Those seem more like policy issues than technology problems. Along those lines, possibly Sunlight Foundation (http://sunlightfoundation.com/) and of course, supporting the EFF (https://www.eff.org/).
Those are my thoughts, but I second your question and hope others have input.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course other ways exist! In these, you will have your head blown off by 18 year olds who mistake your camera for a RPG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike
The risk goes up if you're hanging out with a group of armed insurgents heading towards US infantry wearing no clothing to distinguish you as a noncom before crouching behind cover to aim a shoulder mounted lens at an Apache that was just subjected to RPG fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrik...
I get frustrated, though, that so many still take the WL narrative of events at face value, even though WL edited the video and omitted relevant facts, ultimately distorting the entire nature of the incident.
First, WL marked up the video to highlight non-weapons, suggesting by omission that there weren't weapons in the video, even though there were. Then, they omitted facts like how the Apache crew had avoided engaging insurgents earlier that day, because they suspected noncoms were present, and were going out of their way to avoid civilian casualties.
I find it especially frustrating that supporters of a group that promotes the open discussion of information will just suppress, through silent downvotes, anyone with a different perspective on events, even if that perspective is based on facts they should know if they had only read the source they originally cited.
For the record, revelation, I didn't even downvote you, I just added my take. Even though we disagree, I don't think hive minds and one-sided discussions are ever beneficial for a site like this.
The problem extends much further than Iraq and affects all journalism. For example, the most widely read report from the New York Times on the Russia-Ukraine conflict was completely false. ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-york-times-propaganda-photo... ) That being said, the NYT is still much more neutral in its reporting than the kremlin-funded Russia Today, which is little more than a propaganda machine, includin…
Rather easy to take potshots, now that Iraq is falling apart. If this outcome was so obvious why wait until now to write an op-ed? The pre-war coverage had some problems but I thought the reporting about the war, on the whole, was pretty decent. I read a lot about torture and about the lack of press freedom in Iraq.